Using theory for better public relations practice

Theory is valuable because it provides a way to understand events and to predict outcomes
based on research findings. Theory involves generalisations based on observed or
experimental evidence, which help us describe, explain, understand and predict observable
facts under study (Ferguson, 1984, cited in Sallot et al., 2003).
Public relations is a comparatively young profession and has still to generate its own
significant base of research and body of literature (Jelen, 2008). Most of the theoretical
concepts in public relations have been based on research developed in other disciplines
such as organisational sociology, social and cognitive psychology, mass communication,
systems, political science, operations research, culture, journalism, management, economics
and anthropology. However, in the past two decades, major advances have been made in
the development of public relations as a distinct profession with its own research base.

Models of public relations

A model is a simplified version of reality. The term describes a set of values and a pattern of
behaviour that characterise the approach taken by a public relations department or
individual practitioner to all programs or, in some cases, to specific programs or campaigns
(J. Grunig, 1992, p. 286).
Grunigs four models of public relations
Professor James Grunig clarified public relations into four models (Grunig & Hunt, 1984, pp.
2143). The four models are:
1
2
3
4

Press agentry/publicity
Public information
Two-way asymmetrical
Two-way symmetrical

Of course life is messier than a simple chronological outline of the four models would
indicate, and actual communication activities seldom fall neatly into one category or
another. The behaviours may change over time and when there are different purposes for
the communication. And all four models may apply simultaneously within an organisation,
changing as the situation and stakeholders change. For instance, an organisation will
invariably be more receptive to the views of shareholders than the views of a pressure
group.

Four models of public relations

Characteristic

Publicity /
Press agentry

Public
information

Two-way
asymmetrical

Two-way symmetrical

Purpose

Propaganda

Dissemination of
information

Systematic
persuasion

Mutual understanding

Nature of
communication

One-way;
complete truth
not essential

One-way; truth
important

Two-way;
imbalanced effects

Two-way; balanced
effects

Research

Little; usually
press cuttings
and other inputs

Little; readability,
readership
surveys

Formative;
evaluation of
attitudes

Evaluative; evaluation
of understanding

Where
practised

Sports, theatre,
product and
service
promotion and
marketing

Government, nonprofit
organisations,
large companies

Competitive
business

Regulated business and

flat-structured
companies

Grunig is a strong advocate for the two-way symmetrical model, but academics have
challenged aspects of the two-way symmetrical concept for several reasons. In addition,
international academics arent happy because the concept represents a totally Western,
ethnocentric worldview (Gower, 2006).
Two-way symmetry ignores power disparities; it assumes the organisation and the public
concerned have equal power, and equal skills and resources to represent themselves in the
public discourse (Curtin & Gaither, 2005). This is an unrealistic notion.
However, the critics of this functional approach have been challenged by Grunig to come up
with something betterand they havent. In the 21st century, this is still a work in progress
for public relations scholars.
Press agentry
The earliest model, of press agentry and publicity, was used most during the late Victorian
era and in the early years of the 20th century. Exponents tended to engage in publicity, and
promotional and exhibition events.
But ethical press agentry is alive and well. PR consultancies engage in press agentry every
day in traditional and new media to promote their clients products and services.
Promotional stunts and activities creating publicity are used for concerts, exhibitions, public
displays, sporting events, and cinema and theatre shows. For example, UK billionaire Sir
Richard Branson is renowned as a willing participant in stunts to promote his various Virgin
brands. Exponents of this model are particularly active in the US where publicity and
marketing are aggressively pursued. It is important to ensure as much as possible that the
press agentry activities are ethically based.

Public information
The public information model is used by many companies, government agencies,
associations, not-for-profit organisations and educational institutions. Organisations
conforming to the public information model conduct communication programs, especially
using publicity, to push news about their organisation and its products or services.
Organisations using this model produce an array of information products and dont have a
significant feedback loop in their typical communication cycle, but they present factual
information. Grunig and Hunt (1984, p. 22) described the PR role as being essentially a
journalist in residence, whose job it is to report objectively information about his or her
organization to the public.
Two-way asymmetrical

Asymmetrical communication is characterised by advocacy persuasion or presentation of

the organisations claims. Marketing PR is the best example of this model.
The organisation (employer or client) places its own benefit ahead of other stakeholder
groups in order to survive. The organisation doesnt change as a result of asymmetrical
communication; it attempts to change the attitudes of other parties instead. These
organisations and PR firms may use input research to learn of stakeholder opinions or
preferences, especially in competitive industries such as the consumer goods sector.
Management may brief shareholders or hold community meetings to hear the views of
affected stakeholders. They will then use this information to feed into their
communication efforts to persuade their stakeholders to their point of view. Formative
research plays a significant role in asymmetrical communication to find out what the
public will accept, then the communicator identifies the policies and procedures of the
organisation with the public interest. But there is no real feedback loop otherwise.
Research findings support the view that organisations tend to look after their own interests
ahead of others. However, anecdotal feedback in the age of the internet indicates the
community does expect to be consulted and informed more than in the past, which would
reflect a trend along a continuum towards the two-way concept.
Two-way symmetrical

The ideal model advocated by Grunig is two-way symmetrical communication, which

consists of a full dialogue with stakeholders. Grunig sees the public relations role as bringing
the two sides together in a spirit of compromise and mutual benefit. He recognises that
neither party may change its attitude or behaviour, but if they understand the others
stance he considers the effort to be successful. Research plays an important role in both
two-way models; it is the reason why they are called two-waybecause they require
feedback from stakeholders.
Since it was first published, the two-way symmetrical model has been promoted in much
public relations teaching in the Western world as the ideal to strive fora normative model
3

for public relations practice (J. Grunig, cited in Laskin, 2009). A normative theory [or model]
refers to the ideal of how a profession such as public relations should be practised (Edwards,
2006a, p. 144).
As the symmetrical model has been pushed so hard against the reality that it is an exception
to general practice, this may have contributed to a credibility gap between public relations
academia and practice.
Research has found that organizations in general adjust their communication strategies
according to relevant variable situational factors such as the nature of their publics or
stakeholders, the type of issue and the extent of risk, etc. Most organisations employ all
four models at varying times and with different publics (J. Grunig, 1989; J. Grunig & L.
Grunig, 1989, 1992, cited in Gower, 2006).
The two-way symmetrical model is most apparent in organisations that engage in serious
triple bottom line and social responsibility programs or are heavily regulated by
government so they are obliged to respond to the expressed wishes of stakeholders, for
example, the department of consumer protection, a government research agency, a
hospital, school or local utility.
The internet has created the means for the ideal of two-way symmetrical communication to
be expressed via social media to enable many individuals and organisations to interact
directly with their various stakeholders at almost no cost of transmission via blogs, wikis,
podcasts, etc. Many public websites now have ways for members of the public to respond
by registering their views by email, and even engage in two-way discussion. The internet has
probably contributed to the trend in which communities expect to be consulted on public
activities such as transport infrastructure construction to an unprecedented degreea
prime example of two-way symmetrical communication.

The personal influence model

A reflection of its global cultural reach is the personal influence model of public relations,
developed principally by Sriramesh. This model points out that the success of public
relations is greatly influenced by personal networks. With this model, practitioners try to
establish personal relationshipsfriendships, if possiblewith key individuals in the media,
government, or political and activist groups (J. Grunig et al., 1995).
For instance, Sriramesh and Grunig found that public relations practitioners in India used
interpersonal communication to develop personal influence with key individuals,
particularly in the media, the government, and among activists. These practitioners used
hospitality relations (giving gifts, hosting dinners and cocktails) and media junkets to
develop relationships with relevant groups from whom they could later claim return favors.
Huang (1990) found a similar phenomenon in her study of public relations professionals in
Taiwan. Further examples were found in Japan and South Korea (Sriramesh, Kim & Takasaki,
1999).

The implication of this model is that the people you know are more relevant to ones
professional career than other attributes. This is akin to the Chinese guanxi concept, which is
about personalised networks of influence. Guanxi is the term for a personal connection
between two people in which one person is able to influence the other to do a favour or
perform a service (Huang, 2000). Guanxi can also describe a network of contacts that can help
a person when something needs to be done, and through which he or she can influence on
behalf of another (Zhang, 2009).
Despite a general hesitancy to acknowledge the personal influence model, it is essential in
business to maintain good personal relationships encompassing trust and authenticity, with
strategic contacts. In organisations, the model can be applied by nurturing relationships
with stakeholder publicswho could be media, employees, shareholders, customers,
vendors and others who have an interest in the organisation.
If an organisation could succeed in transforming individual relationships into organisational
relationships, this would enhance the value of the organisation, and contribute to the
overall value of the public relations function (Falconi, 2008, cited in Johnson, 2008).
Organisations can develop the personal relationships of their managers and other
employees.

Situational theory of publics

James Grunigs situational theory of communication holds that the relationship between
knowledge (awareness), attitudes and behaviour depends on several situational factors. The
situational theory of individual communication behaviour uses three main variables to
explain why people engage in behaviour and communicate in a process of planning that
behaviour:
1 Problem recognition. People detect that something should be done about a situation and
stop to think about what to do. Problems may arise externally from the situation,
environment or social system, or internally from lack of understanding.
2 Level of involvement. The extent to which people connect themselves with a situation.
Involvement is the degree of importance or concern that a product or behaviour generates
in individuals.
3 Constraint recognition. People perceive there are obstacles in a situation that limit their
ability to do anything about the situation. This discourages communication (Toth, 2006, p.
509).
Grunigs research showed that the three variables together explain communication
behaviour better than when they are considered individually. In particular, the three
variables identify publics, which is a valuable trait (Grunig, 1992, p. 134).
He found the same profiles of publics remained relevant even over different issues:

All-issue publicsactive on all of the problems

Apathetic publicsinattentive to all of the problems
Single-issue publicsactive on one or a small subset of the problems that concerns only a
small part of the population
Hot-issue publicsactive only on a single problem that involves nearly everyone in the
population and that has received extensive media coverage (Grunig, 1994, cited in Toth,
2006, p. 509).
Situational theory identifies current and potential publics, the extent of their information
requirements, and draws attention to possible obstacles to their involvement in a situation.
The theory acknowledges that certain categories of people are constrained in how they can
act by their level of income, knowledge, education and isolation. This raises possible issues
of inequality and therefore ethics in relation to publics that may need to be dealt with
(Grunig & Hunt, 1984, cited in Mackey, 2009).

Persuasion
Persuasion is the goal of the vast majority of public relations programs. Whole books have
been written on the enormous power of advertising and public relations as persuasive tools
(Seitel, 1995, p. 55).
Pfau and Wan (2006, p. 102) define persuasion as the use of communication in an attempt
to shape, change and/or reinforce perception, affect (feelings), cognition (thinking) and/or
behaviour. The focus is on the attempt.
OKeefe (2002, p. 5) defines persuasion as a successful intentional effort at influencing
anothers mental state through communication in a circumstance in which the persuadee
has some measure of freedom. This focus is on a successful encounter. Communication is
central to both definitions.
Persuasion studies have been drawn from US social psychology schools, which have rarely
referred to public relations applications (Fawkes, 2006). On their part, a growing number of
public relations scholars have come to believe persuasion is an integral part of the
legitimate role of public relations.
The most important skill in persuasive success is that of adapting messages to audiences.
Skilled persuaders adapt their messages to those they seek to influence. Adaptation can
usefully be considered as two separate, but related tasks. One is the task of identifying the
current obstacles to agreement or compliance. The other is the task of constructing
effective messages aimed at removing or minimising such obstacles (OKeefe, 2006, p. 323).
Persuasion ethics

As noted above, one of Grunigs key criticisms of the asymmetrical model is its potential for
unethical behaviour. Yet Porter (2010) argues that the symmetrical model promoted by
Grunig as the pinnacle of ethical practice is not ethical in itself: the systems-based
symmetrical model lacks any true ethics.

So what can we do? There is no doubt that public relations practice is inherently subjective;
few other professions require the same degree of problem solving and professional
judgment in daily practice. This is consistent with the fact that the profession has been
subject to more than 500 attempts at definitions over the years and to continuing debate on
the topic. As a result, there is no set system of practice nor a single broad ethical framework
to guide practitioners. Grunigs symmetrical concept is not the complete answer; not only is
it in limited use in the real world, but other scholars such as claim it is fundamentally not
ethical, either.
Whats more, the public relations professional bodies around the world cant effectively
impose penalties on ethics offenders because more than two-thirds of practitioners dont
belong to a public relations professional body. It seems that voluntary adherence to ethical
behaviour in public relations is about the best the profession can dowith some help from
the codes of ethics of professional bodies.
Edgett (2002) reviews the topic of ethics in terms of advocacy, which she considers to be a
central function of public relations. Her definition of advocacy is the act of publicly
representing an individual, organisation or idea with the object of persuading targeted
audiences to look favourably onor accept the point of view ofthe individual, the
organisation or the idea. That is, being persuasive on behalf of the organisation or a client.
Edgett (2002) contends that a moral superiority has been conferred on objectivity at the
expense of persuasiveness, and that persuasiveness is not inherently wrong, being a part of
rhetoricthe art of persuasive communicationwhich has a centuries-old history.
Edgett constructed a list of 10 criteria for high standards of ethically desirable public
relations advocacy:
Ethically desirable
criterion

Definition

1 Evaluation

Detached or objective evaluation of the issue/client/organisation before

determining whether it merits PR advocacy

2 Priority

Once the PR practitioner has assumed the role of advocate, the interests of the
client or organisation are valued before those of others involved in the public
debate

3 Sensitivity

Balancing of client priority on the one hand with social responsibility on the other

4 Confidentiality

Protection of the clients or organisations rights to confidentiality and secrecy on

matters for which secrets are morally justified

5 Veracity

Full truthfulness in all matters; deception or evasion can be considered morally

acceptable only under exceptional circumstances when all truthful possibilities
have been ruled out; this implies trustworthiness

6 Reversibility

If the situation were reversed, the advocate/client/organisation would be

satisfied that it had sufficient information to make an informed decision

7 Validity

All communications on behalf of the client or organisation are defensible against

attacks on their validity

8 Visibility

Clear identification of all communications on behalf of the client or organisation

as originating from that source

9 Respect

Regard for audiences as autonomous individuals with rights to make informed

choices and to have informed participation in decisions that affect them;
willingness to promote dialogue over monologue

10 Consent

Communication on behalf of the client or organisation is carried out only under

conditions to which it can be assumed all parties consent.

Edgetts ethical criteria for PR advocacy cover some of the same ground as Baker and
Martinsons (2002) five TARES principles of ethical public relations: Truthfulness,
Authenticity, Respect, Equity and Social Responsibility. These models provide some
guidance for practitioners.
Changing behaviour with persuasive messages
Fawkes (2006, p. 283) notes that a persuasive message must actually reach the minds of the
target audience, or the effort and cost of trying to reach them will be completely wasted.
The receivers must understand the message, remember it and undertake more actions
before their behaviour is likely to be altered.
Fawkes has adapted the hierarchy of effects matrix by McGuire (1989) to show the barriers
that a message must overcome to persuade a recipient. The input section describes all the
communication decisions the persuader must take, while the output sectionrefer to the
hierarchy of effects model earlier in this chapterdescribes the processes involved in
having an effect on a person, and the stages in the persuasion process where messages may
need to be reinforced or repeated.
Input variables

The choices the communicator makes when designing a persuasion campaign:

Sources

Who is the speaker and how credible, expert, attractive are they?

Messages

What kind of appeal is made and how is information presented?

Channels

Mass media or direct mail, email; TV ads or text messages; context in

which channel is consumed?

Receivers

Who is the message aimed at and what is the age group, education
level, personality structure?

Intent

What is the desired aim and does it require a behaviour or attitude

change?

Power and influence

Public relations invariably operates close to power and influencephysically and as a
function. Even though the work may be at the PR technicians level, the role frequently
requires practitioners to interact with senior management. Material needs to be obtained
from managers, meetings arranged and executives interviewed, and approvals sought. This
brings most PR practitioners to interact with the senior levels of the organisation. The
conclusion to be drawn from this is that public relations at all levels is associated with power
and influence.
Externally, the public relations function is also associated with influence and power because
it represents the organisation and its management. Public relations can set the agenda for
public discourse and the terms in which discussion takes place. Public relations can be
understood as the strategic attempt to control the agenda of public discussion and the
terms in which discussion takes place. In these terms public relations practitioners are
involved in the attempt to gain, or maintain, social, political, and/or economic power for
the organisations that they represent (Weaver, Motion & Roper, 2006, p. 17).
Berger and Reber (2006, p. 5) maintain that power is the number one issue in public
relations. That desire is overwhelmingly present among PR managers.) Berger and Reber
assert that power is the capacity or potential to get things done, while influence is the
expression or realisation of powerthe process through which power is used or realised (p.
4). Their research found that power and influence mean much the same thing: the ability to
get things done by affecting the perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, opinions, decisions,
statements and behaviors of others (p. 5). The exercise of power through strategies and
tactics becomes influence.
Power may come from many sourcesformal authority, access to decision makers,
information, problem-solving expertise, experience and relationshipsand therefore
multiple resources exist for those who seek influence.

References
Berger, B & Reber, B (2006), Gaining influence in public relations: the role of resistance in practice,
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Curtin, P & Gaither, T (2005), Privileging identity, difference, and power: the circuit of culture as a
basis for public relations theory, Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(2), pp. 91115.
Edgett, R (2002), Toward an ethical framework for advocacy in public relations, Journal of Public
Relations Research, 14(1), pp. 126.
Fawkes, J (2006), Public relations, propaganda and the psychology of persuasion. In R Tench & E
Yeomans (eds), Exploring public relations, Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education.
Gower, K (2006), Public relations research at the crossroads, Journal of Public Relations Research,
18(2), pp. 17790.
Grunig, J (ed.), (1992), Excellence in public relations and communication management, Hillsdale,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Grunig, J E., Grunig. L. A., Srirarnesh, K., Huang. Y. H.. & Lyra, A. (1995). Models of public relations
in an mternational setting. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7, 163-186.
Grunig, J & Hunt, T (1984), Managing public relations, New York: Holt, Rinehard and Winston.

Huang, Y. H. (1990). Riskcommunication, models of public relations and anti-nuclear activities: A

case study of a nuclear power plant in Taiwan. Unpublished master's thesis. University of
Maryland. College Park.
Huang, Y (2000), The personal influence model and gao guanxi in Taiwan Chinese public relations,
Public Relations Review, 26(2), pp. 21936.
Jelen, A (2008), The nature of scholarly endeavors in public relations. In B van Ruler, A Vercic &
D Vercic (eds), Public relations metrics: research and evaluation, New York: Routledge.
Johnson, K (2008), Knowledge management and the personal influence model an opportunity for
organisational
enhancement.
Retrieved
25
November
2009
from
<www.instituteforpr.org/research/relationships/>
Laskin, A (2009), The evolution of models of public relations: an outsiders perspective, Journal of
Communication Management, 13(1), 3754.
LEtang, J (2008), Public relations: concepts, practice and critique, London: SAGE Publications
Limited.
Mackey, S (2009), Public relations theory. In J Johnston & C Zawawi (eds), Public relations: theory
and practice (3rd edn), Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
McGuire, W (1999), Constructing social psychology: creative and critical processes, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
OKeefe, D (2002), Persuasion: theory & research (2nd edn), Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications.
Porter, L (2010), Communicating for the good of the state: a post-symmetrical polemic on
persuasion in ethical public relations, Public Relations Review, 36(2), pp. 12733.
Pfau, M & Wan, H (2006), Persuasion: an intrinsic function of public relations. In C Botan & V
Hazleton (eds), Public relations theory II, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Roper, J (2005), Symmetrical communication: excellent public relations or a strategy for
hegemony? Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(1), pp. 6986.
Sallot, L, Lyon, L, Acosta-Alzuru, C & Jones, K (2003), From aardvark to zebra: a new millennium
analysis of theory development in public relations academic journals, Journal of Public
Relations Research, 15(1), pp. 2790.
Seitel, F (1995), The practice of public relations (6th edn), Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.

Sriramesh, K. (1992). Culture and public relations: Ethnographic evidence from India.
Public Relations Review, 18 (2), 201212.
Sriramesh, K., & Takasaki. M. (1999). The impact of culture on public relations in Japan. Journal of
Communication Management, 3, 337-351.
Sriramesh, K., Kim, Y., & Takasaki, M. (1999). Public relations in three Asian cultures: an analysis.
Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(4), 271-292.
Toth, E (2006), Building public affairs theory. In. C Botan & V Hazleton (eds), Public relations theory
II, New York: Routledge.
Weaver, K, Motion, J & Roper, J (2006), From propaganda to discourse (and back again): truth,
power and public relations. In J LEtang & M Pieczka (eds), Public relations: critical debates
and contemporary practice, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zhang, A, Shen, H & Jiang, H (2009), Culture and Chinese public relations: a multi-method inside
out approach, Public Relations Review, 35(3), pp. 22631.

10